Full Text
* IN THE HIGH COtJRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
/ +' CRi;.REV.R 166/2013 ; \
RAAIANAND AMIT nn ' ' - " ..... petitioner
, Represented by: Mr.Anurag Jain,Adv., n '■ : ' yer^s. -' . v •. " / , ■ ' .
: . ' , : ■ \ .. .....Respondent, . Representedby: Mr. AnilK.Batra, Adv.
W , , , / ■ SIKishor Prasad, PS Greater
■ - . - Kailash.
+ CRL.REV.P. 275/2013,& CrLM.A. 5788/2013
RUHIRAMANAND. ; ;.i. Petitioner
. - ^ Representedby:, Mr. AnilK.Batra, Adv.
' ,versns\. ■ ■ • , • |
SmiRAMANAND AMlT !
~ . r ■ - .Respondent i
' / : Representedby: Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.
Q, . ,CORAM:"y
HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEMUKTA GUPTA I
ORDER j
% 12.0L2017
,1. , Ruhi Ramanand filed:an application before the learned Metropolitan'
Magistrate under Sectiph 12. of the Protection of Women from Domestic
■ Violence Act, 2005 (in short PV^V Act) which was dismissed vide order
CtiL.REV.P.Nos. 166/2013 &275/2013
2017:DHC:8291 dated 27' March,2012notingthatthe onus wasonthe complainantto prove thatshe was legally married to the respondentor both ofthem were qualified to enter into a legal marriage or were unmarried at the time of marriage.
Further no evidence was led to prove that they resided in the rented accommodation for a couple of years as husband and wife in the form of either rent agreement or by examining any witness ofthe locality. The only document filed by the complainantto prove the marital relationship was the medical document of the hospital which has allegedly been signed by
^ Ramanand Amitas her husband and the complainant was notcompetentto prove the signatures ofRamanand Amit on the said document. However, the interim maintenance and monthly rent of the accommodation was not directed to be refunded.
JUDGMENT
2. Challenging the order dated 27* March, 2012 dismissing the complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, Ruhi Ramanand filed an appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act before the learned ASJ which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 22"'' January, 2013 directing Ramanand Amit to pay a lump sum compensation of^2 lakhs. Against the order dated 22"^^ January, 2013 both the parties have preferred revision petitions before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for Ramanand Amit at the outset submits that since. vide the impugned order he was directed to pay alump sum compensation of lakhs and he challenged the same on the ground that he was not legally required to pay the said amount, however having paid ?2 lakhs to Ruhi Ramanand he does not press the revision petition. Thus CRL.REV.P. 166/2013 is dismissed as withdrawn. CRL.REVP.Nos.166/2013 275/2013 page2of[4] o a t. '
4. The findings ofthe learned Appellate Courtin Para 14 and 15 ofthe, impugned order are as under:,,
'i. as a husband at the time ofadmission ofthe appellant in the ^odi hospital. There is reportofProtection Officer on record ^ m her affidavit, appellant has categorically deposed that she was living with respondent at 87/2, Jamroodpur, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi since 11.11.2005 to March 2008. Admittedly, the testimony of appellant has remained unchallengedasrespondentfailedto cross examine her despite numerous opportunities granted to him in this regard. Why then, herrebuttedtestimonyshould be discarded? When the evidence adduced by appellantis consideredas a wholeitis obviousthat,respondentandappellantrepresented themselves as husbandand wife before thesociety. Documents placedon record by theappellanthaveremained unrebutted by the respondent and these documents stand proved. No suggestion has been given on behalf of respondent to the Q appellantthataverments made by herarefalse in any manner. ^ Itistrue,thatonlyphotographsmaynotbesubstantiveproofof thefact that appellant and respondent are wife and husband. Court has to consider evidence in its entirety. In the present case,thereis notonly un-shatteredandun-impeachedtestimony of appellant, but also several documents on record, e.g. photographs, medical record and also FIR No.118/08' u/s 420/376/406IPCandthe only reasonableconclusion which can be drawn, is that appellant and respondent voluntarily co habitedandpresentedthemselves outto the worldaslike CRL.REV.P.Nos.166/2013&275/2013 page3of[4] n spousefor a significant period oftime. Material on record shows that it is not a solitary incident but relationship in the nature ofmarriage between them, continuedfor more than two years,since 11.11.2005, whenso calleddramaofmarriage with appellant wasperformed by respondent. This Courtfinds that learned Trial Court committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence On record and ignoring un-rebutted testimony ofappellant. Thus, evidence on record establishes thatpartieswereinarelationshipin thenatureofmarriageand that appellant was a victim ofdomestic violence and thus, she requiredprotection. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be setaside and recalled. " ■5. The finding of the learned Trial Court that the testimony of Ruhi.Ramanand has gone unchallenged for the reason that despite opportunities Ramanand Amit failed to cross-examine her is not erroneous. Further, the learnedAppellateCourtrightlytookinto considerationthe factthat the carry home-salary of Ramanand Arriit was about ^30,000/- whereas that of Ruhi Ramanand was ?7,500/- and Ramanand Amit had to look after a family which comprises ofhis wife and four daughters.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the order passed by thelearnedAdditionalSessions Judge grantingalump sumcompensation (Q) of?2 lakhs cannot be said to be illegal orperverse warrantinginterference. Hence, CRL.REV.P. 275/2013 & Crl.M.A. 5788/2013 are dismissed.